nnine piro. >> come over there. att. martin: afternoon, everybody. -- good afternoon, everybody. i am the director of external affairs for the d.c. attorneys office. today you will hear from d.c.'s u.s. attorney, edward r. martin junior. mr. martin resigned his post effective upon jeanine pirro's swearing-in yesterday. tomorrow he begins his work as the doj pardon attorney. with us is jonathan hornok, the

chief of the criminal division. he will answer specific questions about events mr. martin will talk about in his opening remarks. before we begin, there are ground rules. each reporter will get one question and one follow-up, and for the benefit of the staff, please state your name and your outlet. if there are questions we do not have time for them a have members of the staff who can take your name and contact information, or you can send them to the u.s. public affairs inbox. there are copies of mr. martin's remarks available and they will be posted online. now let me introduce u.s. attorney head martin -- ed martin. att. martin: thank you.

welcome. thank you for being here. let me recognize the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of arkansas, john ross, who is in town for business and stopped by to make sure we are collaborating closely. he and i talked early in our tenure about ways to work together. thank you for everything you do in arkansas. as a missourian, we love arkansas almost as much as missouri. glad you are here. thank you all for coming, especially washington traffic in the rain can slow you down. when president donald j. trump asked me to be his u.s. attorney for the district of columbia, on day one, i immediately accepted because i knew it was what we call a tip of the spear assignment. tip of the spear assignment. i knew if i did the job the way president trump wanted me to, than it would get plenty of attention, and so it has. i am proud of what we have done

to make d.c. safe again, and what we have done in this office. the president has given me a new assignment as the director of the weaponization working group, a group that has been working already for some two months and of which i am part of. it is an oppressive group. the docket is brought across the country, and the fact across the world, where government was used against the citizens, we have a job to do, and we will do it. i have also been named the pardon attorney for the nation. i spoke a few moments ago with alice johnson, one of the trusted advisors to president trump on issues of pardons and others. she is an extraordinary woman and we are looking forward to working together in that important job. i have loved my job as d.c.'s u.s. attorney. i really have come to treasure the colleagues and the work, but i'm really going to love how

judge jeanine pirro takes up this mission with her passion and intelligence and real-world experience as a prosecutor and judge. she and i have been in contact since she was appointed. she will be getting sworn in soon, and she's tonally energetic and focused -- totally energetic and focused. i'm pleased to be working with her. my motivation to speak today is twofold. first, i wish to highlight our recent success in fighting illegal immigration. second, i wish to express my concern that far too many bad guys are being let go, released by our courts, not detained, and specifically i am thinking -- you can see the images of two fentanyl dealers who were found in possession of illegal machine guns. if you look at the pictures of the drugs and the numbers related up here, it is enough drugs to kill an apartment

building. and these guns that they ceased are enough to slaughter people living in an apartment building. and yet they were released, these two i am thinking of. this is a problem. we have to address it. let me commend the recent illegal immigration and initiative. about a month ago we had tom homan visit, and someone from the department of justice. both talked about our priorities and specifically about the legal immigration -- about illegal immigration. we take seriously the charge to focus on illegal immigration and our initiative has been extraordinarily successful both in collaboration and in the concrete successes we have done. first i salute the brave men and women of law enforcement who are out there making d.c. safer by capturing these illegal aliens. it is dangerous work, work that they have to do in parts of our district that sometimes they are

less familiar with, and so they work together in extraordinary ways to get this done. in the last week in this initiative we had nearly 200 -- i think 189 by count have been captured and are facing the consequences. i want to commend jonathan hornok, the head of our criminal division. he has been a prosecutor in texas and arizona. he's used his experience as a thoughtful prosecutor to be a leader of our division, but also to work with our national and local law enforcement partners to execute this operation restore justice, is what we call it. i want to warn the citizens of the district that the d.c. local leadership, the council and others, has made d.c. a sanctuary city. the cost of that is something that is paid by the citizens.

i warn you as we look more at the sanctuary city provisions that it is crippling law enforcement, local law enforcement, in their effort to keep d.c. safer. that needs to change right now. for the citizens of d.c. more than anyone. my second point deals with the concern about the deteriorating role of our justice system, specifically our courts when it comes to putting bad guys away. our gun initiative, which has been usually successful, started in march, continued through april, taking felosn in possession -- felons in possession of guns was required in part because we could not have confidence that our superior court judges would detain these bad guys who are in possession of guns in violation of the law. that is ongoing. these two fentanyl dealers who were found in possession of these illegal machine guns were not detained by our courts.

this is a heinous problem. we are operating in a system where the public defenders surface and others think it is ok -- service and others think it is ok to not only argue vociferously for detention, but to get that detention from the courts. soft on crime decision-making in this case is dangerous, needs to change. the president of the u.s. was gracious to remind people that our office in our initiative to make d.c. safe again has had great success in these 100 days to lower crime by something close to 30%, but it was not easy. it takes attention, focus, resource, and it takes law enforcement working with prosecutors to get the bad actors off the streets. we need help with this in every aspect of the work. congress gave the district of columbia home rule, but with that comes the responsibility to

the city's residents, businesses and workers, and to the rest of the country that our nation's capital will be safe. when the district's leadership exploited home rule to make d.c. a sanctuary city, they acted like d.c. was just another city. when our justice system thinks justice is a revolving door when bad actors like the ones with guns get on the streets, we have a growing problem. as we approach the president of the united states's america 250 celebration, more people all over the world and country will join us in washington dc, and there needs to be a robust discussion now about d.c.'s sensual every city status --d .c.'s sanctuary city status. if that means home rule is on the table to go away, so be it. if it means the system of getting judges that do this to our city has to change, then so

be it. with that, i am happy to take your questions and i think you for being here -- thank you for being here. >> yeah? >> [indiscernible] >> we went through the process, and i think the senate has their role in the process. ultimately the president decided we did not want to keep going forward. we had the votes. so senator tillis had some objections that he expressed and then blocked it. ultimately the president said we have other battles to do, so i am excited about that. >> i'm sorry? reporter: [indiscernible] att. martin: probably the one thing i would do differently is turn faster towards the question

of violent crime. we started this initiative in march and april. i feel like we could've done that sooner. i could do it now a little bit. the problem with juveniles, the attorney general of d.c. is in this building, he has purview over juveniles. it is a failure. i won't say he is a failure. our juveniles are being exploited by the system. i would have spent more time on that question. across the country, the juvenile problem is one that all cities are facing. it is something we have to be worried about for our community, but in general i don't spend a lot of time worrying about regrets. looking back, i like to see what is coming next. reporter: [indiscernible] att. martin: yeah, sure.

reporter: [indiscernible] att. martin: i would say specifically on those, i don't have an update on those individuals. the working group that has been meeting is an all-star team across doj. it is people from different sections, civil rights. that is an all-star team focused initially on what attorney general bondi gave us on the memo. if you look at the memo on the second page, there is a list. why were catholics targeted? why were schoolboard families targeted? what happened with j6? what was jack smith, the collaboration between federal prosecutors? how did jack smith weaponize the grand jury system?

whistleblowers, the biden administration was particularly hostile to whistleblowers. we have been looking at these specific charges attorney general bondi gave us. we have been getting more weaponization folks coming forward within the government and outside, saying can you look at this, can you look at that? it seems to be a problem growing faster than we can capture. when it comes to the problem of weaponization, the first part of it must be transparency. we have to show our fellow americans what went on, because when you hide it and then you prosecute, you look like you are targeted. the biden administration just targeted people. they really lied, mostly. we have to be more transparent. a lot of what we are doing is trying to get more of the facts out. i was on the phone earlier today

with chairman grassley's staff about some of the documents they want to see put out and currently a lot of them are rejected -- are redacted. we will do that more and more. first thing is more transparency and of course accountability. the weaponization group, i think the president's acknowledgment that so much was going on, you needed a captain. i'm happy to take the helm and get that thing going for the country and people. you had a follow-up? reporter: [indiscernible] att. martin: the relationship is lawlessness is unhelpful to

being able to make people safe. if you are going to decide you don't want to enforce the law of illegals or detaining people, lawlessness gives bad guys an opportunity to do worse things. right now we are living in a place where illegals that detained, the courts will send them to corrections, corrections will release them, won't give them to i.c.e., so we have to have i.c.e. agents sitting outside of the jails, endangering themselves. that is because of lawlessness. if they abided by the federal law, they would be not doing that. similarly the detention of people who commit these crimes, the barrier to being detained is to show that there is enough reason to detain them. we have that in law. what we have currently is judges who think they are the emphasis -- are the advocates who can decide that. bad guys get detained, then we

have to appeal it, and the judges almost every time will say we will not let this guy out with these guns. i think they are related. we better have a conversation about it now if we make the city safer. reporter: [indiscernible] you had some criticism of city leadership. can you describe your interaction with the mayor with resolutions? att. martin: the first person i spoke to when i got the job was the chief of police. she's been very responsive. then i also met with the mayor. first meeting i took was with the mayor. early on i made the effort to go see them. we work with them all the time. what ideas was went out on right along in every part of the city -- on ridealongs in every part of the city. i said to sergeant, beat cops, what is going on where you are? we changed our policies.

we now allow the cops to be face-to-face with the prosecutor instead of doing it by email only. it has been a tough process. it requires overtime. the chief has been supportive of that. we are trying to create a relationship than just email and cyber prosecuting and cops. we have tried to empower the cops and listen to them. the cops will tell you that they were upset that for all these years, if there is a misdemeanor assault on police, it does not get charged many times because it is a lot of effort for a misdemeanor. we said we will charge every time no matter what. it may take a lot of effort. we may be in front of a jury that nullifies us, but we don't care because cops need to know we have their back. we listen to the community. the community is up in arms that we have marijuana pop up shops and shops all over the place. what gathers around those places is not healthy.

the d.c. city council has laws that appear to contradict federal law. i was in georgetown. these are not republicans, these family members who are seeking we don't want a pot store within 1000 feet of a school. not only one, four schools within 1000 feet of a pot shop. those are the policies you hear when you listen to the people. i think the mayor generally has been supportive. she got rid of black lives matter plaza. that is something i wanted. she changed some of the policies to make it better for homeless. i think the problem has percolated back up again. that is something she controls. she has to be the mayor. as much as we can listen to what is needed for the cops and for the community, we have been able to do. reporter: you said you want to

talk more about your new goal. [indiscernible] president trump i believe said the vast majority of orders by president biden were null and void. [indiscernible] att. martin: i will say you concluded a thing. my job as pardon attorney will be to make clear how the pardons work, and i think no one with the standard of reasonableness thinks what joe biden did at the end of his term was to kill early reasonable. i think the pardon power is plenary. if you use the auto pen for a pardon power, i don't think that is necessarily a problem. the question is, how did this happen? many people said, wait, there is

1500 january 6 pardons, how did that happen? they have to be able to withstand scrutiny. i think the biden pardons need some scrutiny. we want pardons to matter and to be accepted and to be something used correctly. i do think we will take a hard look at how they went. i don't know if they are no and void, but i can -- null and void, but i can tell you in my position as u.s. attorney we have been looking at some of the conduct surrounding the pardons and biden white house. reporter: you answered my follow-up. on weaponization, you have been making a lot of public comments that you intend to release information -- [indiscernible]

how do you square those two things? att. martin: i would have to look at the provision you are referring to. we want to square ourselves with doing things correctly. prosecutors -- the prosecutor's role is to make sure what the truth is. when chuck grassley is asking for more transparency from the government, we need to listen. when whistleblowers are talking about what is going on, it can't be that the system is stifling the truth from coming out because of some procedure. if it is in the manual -- look, i tell you the january 6 defendants, all of them want all of their documents back. we said that is not how it works. we have to be thoughtful and serious but how the system works. there is a path. if you are suing, t here is a way.

just like we have to be serious about getting to the truth. there are really bad actors that did really bad things to the american people. if they can be charged, we will charge them. if they cannot be charged, we will name them. in a culture that respects shame, there should be people that are shamed. that is the way things work. that is how i believe the job operates. >> sir, i was going to call on somebody in the back. reporter: [indiscernible] att. martin: senator schumer, someone asked how i did not get confirmed. senator schumer made it a point on my confirmation to be very active.

that is what i am told by senators and senate staff, because i talked about his threats. last week i was assaulted on the steps here. you probably saw it. that is a direct result of the kind of conduct chuck schumer continues to do and encourage others to on both sides at times. we don't stand for it. when i wrote a letter to elon musk, i said we will prosecute people that threaten your people. i said we will prosecute people that threaten your people, that threaten our u.s. attorneys or doxx them. the standard has to be more respectful and serious. i cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. i can tell you chuck schumer's matter, he had apologized on the floor. he had gone out of his way to make sure he wanted to take back the threats. ultimately we decided that made it difficult to charge him with a crime, but i'm happy to say out loud that what he did was

shameful. it's something that is destructive to the discourse, and very intentional in a way that was very different than on the floor of the senate. that i think is what the problem was there. i won't comment on any other investigations. reporter: [indiscernible] are usually at a point where you think d.c. should lose home rule? att. martin: they have a right to home rule. that is the law. i'm not questioning their right. i'm saying if they cannot get their house in order, they should not be surprised if people are asking questions about it. no, i have not talked specifically about that, but when the pardon came down about the two police officers who had been railroaded by this office, one of the conversations we had was how do we get the judges under control? everyone knows the superior court judges, we have problems

with them. there are upwards of 15 vacancies that the president appoints. my point in this is to make sure people know you have to speak the truth. if you don't want to speak the truth, you can move along and wonder how this keeps happening. being a sanctuary city makes it more dangerous for the citizens. letting people have this kind of firepower and these drugs in their possession, letting them get away from you detained is not -- from being detained is not good for the community. reporter: [indiscernible] how many of them have prior criminal records? att. martin: most of them are administrative, meaning --

i will find out for you. i think it is like 10 or 12 were criminal and the rest were administered of. reporter: 90% plus where administered of. att. martin: but it is still against the law. we asked the shelters here, you have to speak truth, the bad guys in this country know it is a sanctuary city, so on their way to miami and new york they stay in the shelters. you ask the shelters, can you give us the rosters? they say no because we are a sanctuary city. that is a problem. if an officer stops someone, metropolitan police, they are not allowed to ask about their status. if they do, they will be fired. that should be a safety concern for people. reporter: you mentioned someone spit on you. any charges? att. martin: as the victim i am not allowed to be involved. soon after when they interviewed me, the fbi and marshals gave the impression that they knew.

i don't think they want to,. reporter: to your point about transparency, i think you said there has to be transparency. the former chief of this office says she resigned because she was pressed or -- she was pressured to investigate something where there was not evidence. was she pressured to do that? is that one of those instances where we can be transparent and talk about it, if we don't prosecute, it is a crime? att. martin: no, the characterization by a disgruntled employee, i think everybody takes with a grain of salt. when you see unprecedented conduct, you as a prosecutor and americans should say what is going on? $6.7 billion transferred to one nonprofit created six months earlier, nine-month earlier, by three nonprofits that by three

nonprofits that came together. that's a fact, right? that should make everybody go, what's that? that's the largest transfer ever from a government to a nonprofit, and it was done with a massive lawyer and a massive application. when you look closely at it, you say, is this criminal conduct? and it is not clear. but it does make you pause. that's what you are supposed to do is pause. just like the biden pardons are unprecedented to the extent, right? back to when hunter biden was whatever age. if that's uncommon. we ought to take a look at that. as a prosecutor, that does not mean you are indicting anyone or subpoenaing anyone. it is real serious, unprecedented. the woman you are talking about, i've never seen anything like it. she's saying whatever she says now, but that's not what an unprecedented situation calls for. and you go through the process, you talk to the magistrate to,

you go and say, do we have a situation where we can go forward? and that's what we did. so a usaid or climate action fund, we are seeing unprecedented conduct that we've never seen before, in a way that is different than we've ever seen, representation as well as money transfer. i think americans deserve to have people saying, what's going on here? >> you are saying to elon musk you are willing to investigate. att. martin: what i mean by that is the same thing i meant to judge bowes berg -- boasberg, when people send a nasty emailed to his daughter, we take in the threat, we have a threat portal, and we process the data. so the term, i'm not sure we go

by a legal investigation on ethical behavior, but, again, unethical behavior is a conduct that gives you an indication within a certain direction. it may not be a crime, but you can say what is this person and how are they doing it? >> i'm sorry, repeat one more time. >> [inaudible] att. martin: have i changed any of my views on the pipe bomb? >> [inaudible] att. martin: so, everything, or january 6? well, the fbi as well as us took a look at it come up with new eyes on it to get to the bottom of it. anything with an investigation that complex, there's a lot of data, so i think a new set of eyes is always good.

beyond that, i think we have to leave it, because they are impacted, and i think, you know, we are optimistic. >> [inaudible] att. martin: well, if you heard me allude to, one thing is i think we will be more public facing. we will talk more about what is going on, so i think we will be more outward facing. we will also be asking people to come towards us. at one of our recent meeting some of the working group, the question was, how do we set up a portal where people can come and talk about how their government has been weaponized against them. we are the department of justice, right? so we've got u.s. attorneys and the civil rights division in the doj that can take up cases, to prosecute cases, so i think we have the full set of tools on the table to across the country to look at, and i think we will be doing that. and, you know, there's a lot of remedies under the law that can

be taken up, but the starting point is to make sure that the public sees what we are doing, understands it, and has confidence. >> [inaudible] before, you know, going forward with a full investigation. att. martin: well, 100%. it would be great if we could find that out. first of all, it takes two things, the president won the election, and his executive order on this topic was day one. pam bondi was confirmed by the senate as attorney general, her memo, whatever her day one, and that gave us specifics. i work in the system, and her systems are what we operated on, darting catholics, january 6, jack smith, letitia james, and you have a whole bunch of people looking at all of those. that is the starting point. i think it is the opposite. if you look back, and i'm now looking closely, you know, the biden administration

was targeting people, they targeted the j six people, they were going for jail -- what's that? with the use of 1512, they targeted individuals to make sure they could put them in jail to build a case, so my point is, the weaponization we are looking at, i'm happy to go back to the first trump administration, further back at this weaponization. it seems like what we are seeing so far, the weaponization, the real focus is in the biden administration, but i'm happy to have any targets we can find, and if there were republicans in government doing those things, we are happy to focus on it. democrats, independents, it does not matter. it matters if government is used against this sort of thing. >> [inaudible] att. martin: anything that was a violation of law, including civil rights. one thing missed is that the biden administration did a lot of violating of the citizens' civil rights, and that is something that could be a big open end, too.

that that?